9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (8) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions have been made from the tax liability on the ground that the amount paid represents house rent allowance. Subsequently, it has been found that the benefit given by the authorities does not represent the house rent allowance, but is only a conveyance allowance which is not permissible for deduction. Hence, the income-tax authorities started recovery proceedings against the third respondent herein, the employer. The employer has also made the payment as there was no dispute with regard to the payment of the amount to the members of the petitioner-union, represents only the conveyance allowance and not the house rent allowance. Now subsequent to the payment made by the third respondent, when the recovery proceedings are initiated against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s open to them to approach the income-tax authorities to get the refund of the same establishing their non-liability to pay the tax. Moreover, the writ petition filed by the petitioner-union is not maintainable. I have carefully considered the contentions of all counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute the fact that the payment made to the members of the petitioner-union is only by way of conveyance allowance which is not permitted for any deduction. However, the third respondent has deducted the amount claiming it to be the house rent allowance. When once the authorities have found that the payment does not represent the house rent allowance, and, as such, the tax liability cannot be excluded, the authorities have pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es they have kept quiet without bringing to the notice of the authorities the true and correct facts. When that be the case I am of the view that it is not open to the petitioner now to raise any objection to the recovery of mistaken deductions granted already. Further, the members of the petitioner-union having known that tax deduction has been given wrongly, they are not entitled for any notice as held in Gunasekaran (R.) v. Tamil Nadu Warehousing Corporation [1993] Writ LR 234: "It is not in dispute that the petitioner was sponsored by the employment exchange and was over aged when he was appointed originally by the regional manager. There cannot be any dispute also that the managing director is the appointing authority for all the post ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
